May 16, 2012

[P]lus, for someone of his demographic and biography, it was more than a little fake. (Did the Harvard Law Review Editor hugging Derrick Bell in that 1991 video really think two men shouldn’t be allowed to get married?)

I love the totally gratuitous homoeroticism McWhorter allowed into his question by having the men hugging.

"Someone of his demographic and biography" is an unusual phrase. Who else has Obama's biography? McWhorter speaks as if this is the sort of person we just know, from experience. But Obama is unique in the history of the world. Who knows who the authentic Obama is? I've read his autobiography, and I got the impression that he himself could never figure it out, and I'm deprived of the actual answer to the question whether he was conning us, and I barely have a guess whether he knew if he was.

If Obama believes in same-sex marriage... what does that even mean for someone of his demographic and biography? Of course, if you go to Harvard Law School and merge/mingle with the elite you get the message of what you're supposed to think, but then... do you really think it? Do you lose touch with what you really think? Of does even that question disguise the real question which is whether there's a real you at the core who thinks anything at all?

(And I'm saying that as a lawprof who has lived amidst the lawprof liberals for more than 3 decades now and who willingly admits that I lost track of what I really thought for myself or whether there was a true self that thought anything at all.)

Quite an admission, Ann. But you're honest. I admit my views stem from my reactions to events in my childhood, my relations with my family, my observations of "enlightened" sexual attitudes while growing up, and how it all came out. Not pure emotions, but observation of cause and effect.

Everyone gets her animus from something. If someone has a happy uneventful upbringing there may be no animus at all.

"(And I'm saying that as a lawprof who has lived amidst the lawprof liberals for more than 3 decades now and who willingly admits that I lost track of what I really thought for myself or whether there was a true self that thought anything at all.)

What Pogo said. I wonder to what extent this blog has assisted you in getting back on track. When did the journey begin? Thinking on it a little more, I wonder if the "losing track" part actually started during the hippie days, or if that was the "true self."

But, you were pretty young when you were a hippie. Plus, it sounds like you aren't sure. I would think, though that no one who is honest with themselves may be sure.

This is why I am not convinced Obama actaully supports SSM. I don't believe him when he says he does because he is not trustworhty on the topic and was not convincing when he said it.

You used the word "dense" to desribe those who did not believe Obama always had supported SSM. I thought it was dense for anyone to believe him now.

I think you are right that he doesn't know what he believes.

And Andy, your hero Obama says he believes in the fairy tale in the sky. I don't believe him about that either. Do you?

If you think that Obama does not belive in Christ or God, even though he says he does, are you OK with this lie because you know he doesn't believe it, just like the SSM lie? Or if you think he is sincere in his professed faith, should he be ridiculed with the rest?

Maybe he just meant someone who is smart and not deluded by Christian fairy tales.

You mean except for when Obama quotes the bible to a room full of pastors to justify his health care plan or when Obama rushes around the country quoting the bible to justify higher tax rates, right rube?

and I'm deprived of the actual answer to the question whether he was conning us,...

Let me help you on this. Yes.

Someone who can talk to one group about "bitter clingers" (in supposed privacy, to get money from those who despise bitter clingers) and then talk for the record of his desire to be a Uniter is, pretty much by definition, a con man.

The TNR article quotes yet another clergy(wo)man (there is also an article at CNN's web site) who seeks to inform us that the Bible really doesn't say about homosexuality what 2000 years of teaching says it has.

You know, like, the rabbis didn't have a clue to the real meaning of Leviticus.

Nor did the Greek Fathers, who spoke Koine greek as their native tongue, have any idea what St. Paul actually meant on the subject.

Opposing SSM does not equal homophobe. That smear has to be denied every time lest it become received wisdom which it ain't, it's a smear plain and simple. And there ain't a wrong side of history and fairness doesn't equal theft, redistribution and reverse racism. And on and on. To quote Ken Kesey: "Never give a inch."

"(And I'm saying that as a lawprof who has lived amidst the lawprof liberals for more than 3 decades now and who willingly admits that I lost track of what I really thought for myself or whether there was a true self that thought anything at all.)"

"...it's the submission to an unknown shadow government in a polity from which I have no escape."

Obama is the only elected politician I have ever heard of who counted on everyone knowing he was lying about significant statements of principle and that people would assume the lies were there to get the rubes to vote for him anyway.

Turns out they did.

That was a neat trick, and one that Obama doesn't seem like he can re-create now that he has a real track record.

who willingly admits that I lost track of what I really thought for myself or whether there was a true self that thought anything at all.

This is a valuable insight. To realize that there is such a thing as "group think" and being influenced by the group/community in which you are immersed to the point that you don't know if your thoughts are really yours or part of the community.

People WILL get influenced by the attitudes of those around them, especially if you find yourself in an insular group, such as in academia. The echo chamber effect is very strong.

The counter to that is to get out of your comfort zone, meet people with whom you think that you have nothing in common with, talk, discuss, ask questions, accept their views as being just as real as those you have been holding and reflect on what is still in your inner core as to YOUR beliefs.

Do those beliefs belong to YOU or are they part of the 'group' and the natural human instinct to conform to the group.

No he isn't. He's yet another narcissistic wanna be dictator who is charming, but dumb as a brick. He's a lousy politician who gets a pass from the media and acts like a two-bit thug for those who dare threaten his power. Chicago politics for starts is full of these assholes.

Yes, I can see how your concern is quite genuine. Just remember to keep stuffing your pillow with sentiments like that because Garage's "epic butt hurt" isn't going to go quite the direction he thought it was.

"Obama is unique in the history of the world" is true, so is every other human being, which, I am pretty sure, is Ann's point.

Kind of like Rush riling lefties with his "Talent on loan from God!" Everybody's talent is on loan from "God," however you define God, as a metaphor for a random universe or a guy sitting on a throne at the top of a mountain in the clouds.

Maybe he just meant someone who is smart and not deluded by Christian fairy tales.

I must say, Hat, it's amusing in a perverse way how self-important hissy children like you have no better retort to a believer than "you're stupid." It proves only the existence of a vast wasteland between the ears.

Your precious Obama wouldn't have the intellectual heft to win a battle of wits with Pope Benedict's shoes.

The troll hastens to be first, in each instance hastens, you do notice that, to say something so stupid and lowball and outrageous that you must react and you never fail to take the bait. To best affect the whole thread. It makes itself brilliantly easy to ignore and it produces one single thing, like an ice cream machine that reliably glops out one old hateful spoiled flavor. And it announces, HERE'S THE SPOILED ICE CREAM TRUCK COME FIRST! and you go running for it. Make your purchase, turn to us and go, look what awful flavor this, yuk.

McWhorter today isn't the McWhorter of ten years ago, when his writing and thinking were both fresh and refreshing. Back then, at Berkeley, he seemed eager to break from what was expected of him in order to develop an actualized self. Alas.

But really, if he's willing to take the Black vote for granted, and is angling for the Hispanic vote, and never had a life-long Dem auto worker like my uncle (secret Muslim), where does he expect to go?

Andy of Mayberry's belief that being opposed to SSM makes you a bigot would put a cap on the folks who are evolving. If someone calls you a bigot when you're struggling w/ an issue how will a person react? Well..they'll say "fuck you." So, Andy..or should we call you Barney Fife, keep shooting yourself in the foot.

"Of course, if you go to Harvard Law School and merge/mingle with the elite you get the message of what you're supposed to think, but then... do you really think it? Do you lose touch with what you really think? Of does even that question disguise the real question which is whether there's a real you at the core who thinks anything at all?

(And I'm saying that as a lawprof who has lived amidst the lawprof liberals for more than 3 decades now and who willingly admits that I lost track of what I really thought for myself or whether there was a true self that thought anything at all.)"

Profoundly illuminating. Go with it, that is the iceberg tip of a very interesting book which could have a big national impact (and sell a bunch of copies).

"And I'm saying that as a lawprof who has lived amidst the lawprof liberals for more than 3 decades now and who willingly admits that I lost track of what I really thought for myself or whether there was a true self that thought anything at all."

Oh, come on. This post is far from your best. It's not the part about living among 'lawprof liberals'. OK, fine, but that's not different from living in any other lefty monoculture (e.g. Upper West Side, or really any part of professional NYC). From there, it's not even downhill so much as directionless: lost track of what "I really thought for myself"? Seems very unlikely even if the reality was that you didn't form (or share) opinions about topics that would have you swimming against the lefty stream. Not "thinking for myself" is a way of saying that you were just going with the flow. OK. If so, you had lots of company.

But the real douzy is this: "whether there was a true self that thought anything at all." Where to begin? Perhaps here: pace Stanley Cavell, you don't have to mean what you say, and this is clearly one of those instances.

So what's with this post? It's starts with a riff on a weird turn of phrase (someone of his "demographic and biography"), and then just wanders off into lala land. A riff is supposed to lead to something jazzy. But I'm not hearing the beat.

Chip Ahoy said..."The troll hastens to be first, in each instance hastens, you do notice that, to say something so stupid and lowball and outrageous that you must react and you never fail to take the bait. To best affect the whole thread. It makes itself brilliantly easy to ignore and it produces one single thing, like an ice cream machine that reliably glops out one old hateful spoiled flavor. And it announces, HERE'S THE SPOILED ICE CREAM TRUCK COME FIRST! and you go running for it. Make your purchase, turn to us and go, look what awful flavor this, yuk."

Chip,

I'm a big fan of your posts and the art of your writing. Are you implying that Andy Cap is a sock puppet like Carol Herman was (i.e. designed to stimulate traffic (not that that is a bad thing))? I've been wondering about that too.

I reject the attempt by supporters of same sex marriage to pretend that the only relevant issue is bigotry. You-all may talk that way to each other, in your bubble, but those of us who oppose it don't have to accept your framing.

I absolutely loathe the word "homophobic" and it's derivatives. A phobia is an unreasoning fear, and the use of the word shuts out completely the concept that opposition to cultural encouragement of homosexuality can be based on reason instead of irrationality and fear and labels all such people as ignorant. The idea behind the word is to destroy debate. I refuse to use it and see that people who do are fools.

People who love each other and live with each other need to be able to have most (maybe all, I'm not an expert) of the legal rights that married people have. For example, your gay lover with whom you have lived for 10 years is dying, is incapacitated and you have to have the legal ability to make some serious life and death decisions.

I don't necessarily see the need to call it marriage and definitely don't want churches to have to sanction gay marriage but gays need a legal basis for their relationships. It seems like a good thing to me to encourage gays to be in stable relationships.

That would be a God-send for divorce attorneys and a nightmare for benefits administrators.

Okay, so Sally decides to marry Jim. Later, Jane marries into the group about a year after Sally has a child. Five years later Susan and Bob marry into the group (which now has another child of Sally's and three from Jane) with their own two young children. Two years later Steve marries into the group, which now has other children from different parental mixes.

Now Sally decides she's sick of the whole bunch and wants to divorce them all and move to a lesbian commune on the Mediterranean Sea.

Who has to pay who what? What are the visitation arrangements? How will the pensions of various people be divided up?

Who's been carrying the insurance for all these folks in the meantime?

"(And I'm saying that as a lawprof who has lived amidst the lawprof liberals for more than 3 decades now and who willingly admits that I lost track of what I really thought for myself or whether there was a true self that thought anything at all.)"

Please you are all either clueless, or cowards. You voted for and covered for an illegal non natural born Usurper (born British, of a British subject father)! Shame on you and those like you, including Volokh, and Instapundit. All frauds. What do they actually teach in "law school" anyway?

I believe this is among the strongest arguments in favor of the Electoral College. California has 37 million people and a handful of independent views. If they think as a bloc, count their votes as a bloc.

Crom is also the god at the center of the best prayer in movie history.

"Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad. Why we fought, or why we died. All that matters is that two stood against many. That's what's important! Valor pleases you, Crom... so grant me one request. Grant me revenge! And if you do not listen, then to HELL with you!"

Amazing admission Ann, I totally understand it. I think no matter what age we are, or our life circumstances, if we are honest with ourselves we will all evolve to some degree! Or finally recognize what we stand for. I'm not trying to win the sychophant of the year prize, that belongs to Ed, but I respect the heck out of you for such honesty.

Zero doesn't give a damn about someone of his demographic and biography except him.

Andy R. said...

Rev. McKissic says a lot of blacks will sit out this election.

I suspect evangelicals wary of Mittens will play a more important role than blacks wary of Obama.

Keep telling yourself that, sweetheart. This country's going to be one big ABO club by November.

So to oppose SSM is to be a homophobe according to McWhorter?

Yes, this is becoming the accepted wisdom. Sorry bigots, couldn't have happened to a nicer group of people.

Actually, it isn't. If you dig into that Black Rock/Gray Lady poll of a couple days ago, you find that support for same sex and civil unions (the only way it's even close to a majority) has been dropping since September after going gradually up since '04.

Support for same sex marriage only is about 42%, so that vote in NC was pretty reflective of the country.

And this is in a poll where Demos outweighed Republicans by 43 - 25 among all respondents and 36 - 30 among registered voters. The real numbers must be worse.

I know a lot of people who oppose same sex marriage. Not one of them, not a single one, would deny in private, that they have huge problems with homosexual people. And most everyone I know who is opposed to SSM, also would agree with the statement "homosexual sex should be illegal."

All media, poseur-caterwauling to the contrary, I am certain that what I have described above is overwhelmingly representative.

Long story short: Precious few people are out there opposing SSM, who really have no problem at all with homosexuality. To assert otherwise is pretty dumb.

I know a lot of people who oppose same sex marriage. Not one of them, not a single one, would deny in private, that they have huge problems with homosexual people. And most everyone I know who is opposed to SSM, also would agree with the statement "homosexual sex should be illegal."

All media, poseur-caterwauling to the contrary, I am certain that what I have described above is overwhelmingly representative.

Long story short: Precious few people are out there opposing SSM, who really have no problem at all with homosexuality. To assert otherwise is pretty dumb.

Because all national social policy should based on a single person's anecdotal (and almost certainly incorrect) assumptions about people he wants to feel superior to.

harrogate said...I know a lot of people who oppose same sex marriage. Not one of them, not a single one, would deny in private, that they have huge problems with homosexual people. And most everyone I know who is opposed to SSM, also would agree with the statement "homosexual sex should be illegal."

All media, poseur-caterwauling to the contrary, I am certain that what I have described above is overwhelmingly representative.

Long story short: Precious few people are out there opposing SSM, who really have no problem at all with homosexuality. To assert otherwise is pretty dumb.

That's nice.

And, 30 states have voted against SSM and a majority in the latest CBS/NYT poll say SSM should be illegal.

So the majority of voters in the country, in your view, wants gay sex illegal.

Liberals are poor judges of character. In my opinion liberals should have outgrown their liberal views by the time of their early middle age or else they are closed minded or just lacking intellectual curiosity. I can't help but be contemptuous of people who fell for Obama.

Sure, but the problem is that the SSM crowd wants the door opened wide for their agenda, then slammed shut behind them. The same arguments the SSM crowd were previously making are then leveled at that door by the polygamists, but the SSM crowd, comfortably ensconced inside, come up with reason after reason why those arguments no longer apply.

You want to really laugh your ass off, try convincing a righteous black rage type that SSM is a civil rights concern. I don't know why this doesn't get much play in the punditry, but aside from the fact that black culture tends toward intolerance of gays (just ask a gay black man), this flies in the face of logic.

Steve Koch wrote:People who love each other and live with each other need to be able to have most (maybe all, I'm not an expert) of the legal rights that married people have. For example, your gay lover with whom you have lived for 10 years is dying, is incapacitated and you have to have the legal ability to make some serious life and death decisions... [it] seems like a good thing to me to encourage gays to be in stable relationships.

Commendable sentiments, I suppose. But not an argument.

C'mon people, if you're so damned clever, so educated you ought to be able to formulate a series of simple, connected statements that can establish the proposition. Jeezus!

I know a lot of people who oppose same sex marriage. Not one of them, not a single one, would deny in private, that they have huge problems with homosexual people. And most everyone I know who is opposed to SSM, also would agree with the statement "homosexual sex should be illegal."

Love to see the data on that one because a lot of people who "have huge problems with homosexual people" are by no means alike.

They may think it's something that shouldn't be encouraged for biological, epidemiolgical, sociological, moral, psychological, or historical grounds.

And I doubt harro knows anyone opposed to same sex marriage because they don't let people like that on Kos.

This is going to be the Lefties' drill on this - all social Conservatives are hypocrites because they want government to impose their will on the queers (pardon my French to Palladian and any other homosexuals in the crowd). So let's see the data to back it up - and, no, Rick Santorum does not speak for all social Conservatives (he sure as Hell doesn't speak for me).

Long story short: Precious few people are out there opposing SSM, who really have no problem at all with homosexuality. To assert otherwise is pretty dumb.

Short story shorter - people are entitled to their opinion and harro can't see the obvious.

Another Lefty tries to re-invent the wheel only to have it come out square.

PS Somebody tell Oop to take a look at cruise ship rape thread and tell me how much a syncophant I am.

I said: "It seems like a good thing to me to encourage gays to be in stable relationships."

Nathan Alexander said..."How, exactly, would SSM encourage gays to be in stable relationships?Does it?SSM supporters make this assertion all the time.The evidence doesn't support it."

Just to be precise, I did not say that I am for SSM (still thinking about it) but I am for civil unions. I have no proof that civil unions or SSM encourage gays to be in stable relationships, just had a vague, not very well thought out feeling that it might help.

If marriage encourages straights to be in a stable relationship then it would probably help gays, too. I don't have any convincing evidence that marriage encourages people to be in a stable relationship. More likely, marriage results from stable relationships, rather than stable relationships resulting from marriage.

phx wrote:All able-minded consenting adults should have the freedom to marry other able-minded consenting adults. Therefore SSM and polygamy should not be prohibited.

There is some some logic here. Congratulations.

Many days ago on this blog I posed a challenge: Explain why SSM is good. I got a few takers, but all failed miserably. Though everyone had his own unsupported declaratives, only one offered anything remotely logical, to wit: SSM is good for the same reason traditional marriage is good, and then failed to explain why traditional marriage is good. Hopeless. You, phx have at least a toehold on your premise. To argue convincingly, however, you have work yet to do:

1) Is freedom always good? Laws are a restraint on freedom, yes? All societies have laws of some form. You must show why this freedom is good.

2) Who is able-minded? And who decides?

3) Who is an adult? Do we define this as having reached an arbitrarily selected age? 21 years? 18 years? According to some beliefs a child attains moral responsibly by age 12 -- manhood according to the Torah. Shall we allow 12-year-olds to marry each other?

All able-minded consenting adults should have the freedom to marry other able-minded consenting adults. Therefore SSM and polygamy should not be prohibited.

I don't know, what do you think? Is it logical?

Nope, not logical.

You are just making a flat assertion.

Why should consenting adults be allowed to marry other consenting adults?

It makes a huge difference why.

Is it simply because of "love"? How do you verify it really is love and not infatuation? If "love" is enough, then why should an adult's love for a child be disallowed? Can children not feel love? If you insist it is a different sort of love, how do you know, and how can you prove it?

These are the questions that need to be answered before legalizing SSM. I haven't seen any pro-SSM argument that has addressed more than just an airy dismissal of the first question:What are the potential problems of allowing SSM? How can those potential problems be avoided? How will those costs/problems be avoided and/or pushed onto society? Who benefits from SSM legalization? How much is the benefit? Who is worse off from SSM legalization? By how much? If some are helped, and some are harmed, what is the balancing point where the gains are considered greater than the harm, and vice versa? What happens if the expected benefits don't materialize? What happens if the harm is greater than what is expected?

The point is, SSM has been pushed for because "people are in love and want to get married".That is an extremely weak argument. There are many things that are illegal that don't become legal just because of "love", or because someone wants to.

If SSM is justified on the basis of love, then by what basis does love for multiple people, or a child, or an animal *not* constitute an equally strong reason for allowing sex/marriage?

The bright line was never previously "love". "Love" was a 20th century western concept. The bright line has always been to protect the disparate interests and vulnerabilities of all parties involved. Because the interests and vulnerabilities of men, women, and children are all different.

Steve Koch wrote:"People who love each other and live with each other need to be able to have most (maybe all, I'm not an expert) of the legal rights that married people have. For example, your gay lover with whom you have lived for 10 years is dying, is incapacitated and you have to have the legal ability to make some serious life and death decisions"

Quaestor:"Commendable sentiments, I suppose. But not an argument.

C'mon people, if you're so damned clever, so educated you ought to be able to formulate a series of simple, connected statements that can establish the proposition."

Yeah, I just gave an example that I found persuasive. BTW, I am defending civil unions not SSM.

Can you make an argument why gays should not be able to have civil unions?

Marriage is a construct of Natural Law, i.e in order to encourage the propagation of the citizenry, and also to legalize and ensure economic support of children born of those relationships. Gay "marriage" has NO BASIS in natural law-- it is very UN-natural, nor does it enhance the propagation of the citizenry, and as such it does not belong in any jurisprudence associated w/ the Federal government. Duh. Remember "law of nature and nature's god?"

Just to be precise, I did not say that I am for SSM (still thinking about it) but I am for civil unions. I have no proof that civil unions or SSM encourage gays to be in stable relationships, just had a vague, not very well thought out feeling that it might help.

If marriage encourages straights to be in a stable relationship then it would probably help gays, too. I don't have any convincing evidence that marriage encourages people to be in a stable relationship. More likely, marriage results from stable relationships, rather than stable relationships resulting from marriage.

I was just riffing off your statement, not claiming you are a supporter.But good answer.

I agree with your last sentence, for the most part.

Marriage as a legal institution encourages staying with a relationship only to the extent that it punishes someone for acting selfishly and/or dishonorably.

That is, marriage worked to stabilize relationships because if a man left his wife for the secretary, he would pay through the nose. And if a woman slept with the milkman (forcing the husband to pay to raise a child not his own), she could end up on the street with nothing. This was predicated on the idea that a woman would contribute as a homemaker, and men would contribute as a breadwinner. She would treat her husband well to ensure she retained access to being cared for, he would treat her well to ensure he retained access to his children, sex, and the fruits of his labor. Dowry just increased the stability, because the penalty of having to pay back a dowry and everything gained from it would be crippling to any person and their family...so the family pressured the couple to stay together.

Added to that were the social penalties that as women age, they have a harder time remarrying, especially w/ kids. As men age, their attractiveness and earning power can actually increase significantly in comparison to the wife's, so denying access to his children and assets helped keep him faithful.

And if the marriage did dissolve, the childrens' needs were met by balancing the maternal and paternal contributions to their upbringing.

Please note, no system is perfect, and a truly selfish person, truly duplicitous woman, or truly wealthy man wasn't realistically bound...but society used to revile such people.

Women entering the work force messed that up quite a bit, because women could get what they want, then bail on the marriage when it became inconvenient, and still get the kids, half his money, and all hers.

No-fault default made things even worse, because she no longer had to prove it was his fault before she was able to walk away with everything.

SSM doesn't protect anyone. If two men or two women split, they have identical future prospects of remarriage or career future. Absent a genetic link, there is no social reason to give custody of children to one parent or the other, so marriage isn't helpful. With a genetic link, custody is a no-brainer (the one with no shared genetic material has no rights).

One is yours by natural law and the other is granted to you by permission of the government created by people like garage, Andy, and Will Robinson pointing that accusatory finger, together with anyone else who votes once or twice.

If you believe in limited government and indiviual liberty, you presumptively belong on the side of allowing consenting adults to choose who they wish to marry, as long as they agree to abide by the one-at-a-time and no close relations rules that apply. I think those who claim to believe in limited government and individual liberty but oppose SSM, thereby allowing the government to interfere, are the ones who have some 'splainin to do.

It's not like there are a limited number of marriages and the gays are going to take yours.

The question might be: is single sex marriage which does not produce the next generation the same as heterosexual marriage which does? An African-American is as intelligent as anyone else; a woman can do the same job as a man; they should have the same rights. But can single sex marriage sustain society by producing a new generation? If not, then there is a difference between the two and the difference is important to society. This was formerly recognized by defining certain heterosexual relationships as "marriage" and trying to strengthen marriages because there were children, the next generation, involved.

If you believe in limited government and indiviual liberty, you presumptively belong on the side of allowing consenting adults to choose who they wish to marry, as long as they agree to abide by the one-at-a-time and no close relations rules that apply. I think those who claim to believe in limited government and individual liberty but oppose SSM, thereby allowing the government to interfere, are the ones who have some 'splainin to do.

How would limiting it to "one-at-a-time" be conducive to limited government? Somebody has to keep count.

There really isn't an argument in support of SSM that cannot be used to support polygamy.

As I said before, I acknowledge and embrace my own hypocrisy on this. Abortion, too. Limited government, individual liberty, yada yada, but I cannot get past the deep moral evil that is abortion. I set it aside as an issue that does not fit into my philospophy of the individual's relation to the state.

Maybe that's the same for limited government opponents of SSM -- just a bridge too far.

Steve Koch wrote:Yeah, I just gave an example that I found persuasive. BTW, I am defending civil unions not SSM.

Perhaps you find it persuasive because that is the opinion you held beforehand. If so this is an example of confirmation bias in action. I'm looking for an argument, ok? Not a catechism. Imagine if you will that this is a not a political talking point, a mere trope to give the Obama campaign a straw to clutch at, but a question in natural science. You say you have evidence of X, which implies Y. Let's see your evidence.

You people in the pro-SSM camp (I don't necessarily include you, Steve) seem remarkably dense on this subject. Maybe because the Liberal Arts aren't. Maybe it's because there are no more professors of rhetoric. I dunno... it seems that today the majority of educated professionals can't defend a position.

Can you make an argument why gays should not be able to have civil unions?

I'm not going to rise to that bait. As the side demanding change it is incumbent on the SSM/civil unions advocates to persuade. You're the plaintiff, I'm the defendant. The burden is on you. Besides, I asked first.

I agree with the "bridge too far" statement. Rather than push SSM, the left should first push civil unions (because civil unions does not have the tradition, emotional meaning, and religious meaning that marriage has).

"No, the question is: is single sex marriage which does not produce the next generation the same as heterosexual marriages which also do not?"

Like ALL of phx' ilk, he/she likes to argue the exception as the rule. The fact is that hetero marriages can, and homo marriages can't, no matter what relativism you want to apply. The reason that hetero is sponsored and encouraged is because it CAN. That not all do is irrelevant. Logic is the destroyer of any left-wing relativism.

Vattel's Law of Nations "§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

It's good to see that you support civil unions. A lot of people think the gays should have civil unions with all the same rights as marriage, but just a different name. That way, the gays can have something separate, but equal. That would be a great slogan for civil unions: Separate, but equal!

An interesting point, if it can be confirmed. Absent any real data I'll hold this to be a credible assertion, at least in the case of male/male domesticity, since by conventional wisdom men are more prone to violence than women, and two men are doubly so. The same holds for infidelity. It wasn't so very long ago that the whole gay subculture was geared to promote anonymous promiscuity. Should AIDS ever be tamed I don't doubt that, men being male, promiscuity would return at least as prevalent as before.

I suspect that if SSM were instituted the main result would be an even greater dominance of lawyers and courts in our national life.

I call them both sex. Am I misunderstanding you? I would say, "I had sex last Saturday," not "I had homosexual sex last Saturday."

In case it's not clear, people in support of marriage equality don't like civil unions because they don't like separate but equal. People opposed to marriage equality don't like civil unions because they know once the state passes civil unions then the courts will make them rename them marriage because we don't believe in separate but equal in this country.

Quaestor said..."Perhaps you find it persuasive because that is the opinion you held beforehand. If so this is an example of confirmation bias in action."

Or perhaps not. The example made me relate to the predicament that gay couples find themselves in and to think about their situation in general. Wonder why you don't seem to relate to their plight in that heart rending situation?

Steve said:"Can you make an argument why gays should not be able to have civil unions?"

Quaestor said:"I'm not going to rise to that bait. As the side demanding change it is incumbent on the SSM/civil unions advocates to persuade. You're the plaintiff, I'm the defendant. The burden is on you. Besides, I asked first."

Haha, we aren't in a court of law, we're on a blog discussing this and most of us conservative straights are not totally up on the SSM arguments so it is difficult for us to make elegant arguments on this topic. I presented a persuasive example showing where gays need some kind of civil union protection. Show me why they don't.

I don't know how much this matters but you asked for an argument defending SSM not civil unions (I was first to ask for an argument about civil unions).

If marriage encourages straights to be in a stable relationship then it would probably help gays, too.

If you care about "stable relationships" you should want to end no-fault divorce. If there was no no-fault divorce then the already miniscule interest which homosexuals have in marriage would evaporate completely.

Steve said:"Rather than push SSM, the left should first push civil unions"

Andy said:"It's good to see that you support civil unions. A lot of people think the gays should have civil unions with all the same rights as marriage, but just a different name. That way, the gays can have something separate, but equal. That would be a great slogan for civil unions: Separate, but equal!"

"Should first push civil unions", key word first.

Campaigns or wars or projects (all kinds of things actually) are subdivided into sequential phases. First, you accomplish your first objective, then you move on to your second objective and so on. Accomplishing the first objective makes it easier to accomplish the second objective.

The example made me relate to the predicament that gay couples find themselves in and to think about their situation in general. Wonder why you don't seem to relate to their plight in that heart rending situation?

God, you're so emo. There is no "predicament" or "plight" or "heart rending situation".

Q said..."The example made me relate to the predicament that gay couples find themselves in and to think about their situation in general. Wonder why you don't seem to relate to their plight in that heart rending situation?

God, you're so emo. There is no "predicament" or "plight" or "heart rending situation".

Dry your tears and get a grip on your emotions."

For some reason that made me laugh so hard it brought tears to my eyes (drying my tears was a 2 fer 1).

phx wrote:I don't know if freedom is always good, but the presumption should always be in freedom's favor.

Really? This is going to be fun...

I really, really want a Ferrari 458 Italia. I really, really, really can't afford one (Who am I kidding? I really, really, really, really can't even afford the insurance.) The Ferrari 458 Italia was designed to go really, really, really, really, really fast (200 mph plus) ergo by natural law doctrine a speed limit is an artificial restriction on my freedom to drive said car at the speeds it was designed to attain. (To paraphrase, men are everywhere born with lead feet, and everywhere are ticketed by the cops) Yet I could take my Ferrari on to a deserted stretch of highway and, risking no neck but my own, commit a crime by exercising that freedom. I like to drive fast. Some cars are very good at going fast. People spend a lot of money on cars designed to go fast. If I were one of those people with sufficient money I'd own a car that goes fast. Should I presume my freedom to drive fast (Hey! I've got the ability and the inclination; that's all that's required to have the natural right to same) is good?

I lot of people piss me off. I'm convinced the world would be a better place if those people went bye-bye. Should I rack a few 12-gauge buckshot loads and exercise my freedom to go a-huntin' for those bastards?

The guy across the road has a hottie for a wife. I'm jealous. He's not at home, and I'm strong enough to haul her into the bushes. Should presume my freedom to have my way with her is good?

I could go on... but why? Old Tom Hobbs has been down this road before me. What surprises me, phx, is that you evidently haven't.

What kind of a dick is still going around calling people they disagree with Marxists, or Nazis, or evildoers? Grow up, baby.

The kind of dick who sees other dicks making Marxist arguments.

The argument that "You can't say anything about blacks/gays/Jews/other-left-wing-group-of-your-choice unless you're a member of that group" is (A) logically nonsensical and (B) a staple of left-wing thought.

"The example made me relate to the predicament that gay couples find themselves in and to think about their situation in general. Wonder why you don't seem to relate to their plight in that heart rending situation?

I think their predicament is heart-rending, and I hope that as neuroscience advances, people like Andy can be cured. I wouldn't want to bear the burdens of his disorder, that's for sure. Life's hard enough.

"The presumption should always be in freedom's favor." You can quote me.

That's a vapid statement.

Whose presumption, for starters? There is no "the" presumption. Three hundred million people in America each have their own presumptions, and they differ from yours. Are you trying to tell other people that their presumptions are wrong? In that case, where does their "freedom" actually reside? In your head, apparently. You'll tell them when they are free and when they are not.

Then there is the problem of what "freedom" actually means. If you actually think about the concept you'll discover that it is about as useful a word to base a code of law on as "equality".

Freedom isn't free. It's a contract which we all agree to uphold. If we all have to agree to uphold a certain contract then we should all be allowed to vote on it. That is the "free" thing to do.

I think their predicament is heart-rending, and I hope that as neuroscience advances, people like Andy can be cured. I wouldn't want to bear the burdens of his disorder, that's for sure. Life's hard enough.

There are no "freedoms", dumbass. There are things which your fellow citizens agree to guarantee to you.

For example, we agree that you should have the right to free speech. If somebody tries to violate your right to free speech we agree to oppose them. This position is not based on the content of your speech, which based on this thread is rather worthless in itself. It is based on a joint agreement that this position best serves our common good.

If you want your fellow citizens to elevate the right to gay marriage to something which we all agree to fight to protect then you need to make positive arguments in its favor, explaining how gay marriage serves the common good.

I don't give a rats ass about your particular notions of "freedom", so repeating the word like a magic talisman is not the deus ex machina which you seem to believe it to be.

Obama is unique in the history of the world. Who knows who the authentic Obama is? I've read his autobiography, and I got the impression that he himself could never figure it out, and I'm deprived of the actual answer to the question whether he was conning us, and I barely have a guess whether he knew if he was.

God, will you ever get over this? Or is this what's necessary to one day admit to yourself you've been a sap?

I've told you repeatedly Obama was a con man - so there's nothing unique about them. Your reaction to him isn't even unique, but classic delusion.

I think you both going to college is probably what's most revealing about the two of you; how you let it lead you astray,....

That might be true in your case - you're simply a credulous consumer of the well-meaning fallacy asserting that your disorder is normal. Once there's a cure, though, the vast majority of people similarly afflicted will choose to be psychologically healthy, and this entire experiment in cultural self-deception will resolve itself.

First, regardless I'd anything else, integrity matters, character matters, and behavior matters. If someone uses dishonest and underhanded methods to get something, it is a bad goal. And aside from that, dishonest and dishonorable behavior should not be rewarded.

From the first, this movement was dishonest.n it started with a push for legal rights, like visitation and insurance. They didnt want civil unions,they just wanted legal rights. As soon as they started getting those legal rights, then they wanted civil unions. They would never ask for marriage, they didn't care about that religious nonsense, they just wanted a legal relationship. Then after they got civil unions, they abandoned that pretense and started pushing for marriage.

They *say* they won't push religious orgs to perform SSM marriages...

They said they just wanted a chance to put SSM up for a vote, but when it gets voted down, they use the courts to get it imposed. One couple is even using their divorce to try to get SSM recognized in a state that doesn't recognize it by trying to divorce there.

Essentially dishonest.

On top of that, look at the outpouring of hate and despicable attempts to expose and intimidate those who voted for Prop 8.

If that weren't enough, the campaign to silence and intimidate by calling people bigots and/or homophobes while ignoring, dismissing, and avoiding valid and thouhtful questions and challenges to the SSM push demonstrates tha SSM proponents can't defend their views.

At all.

The only arguments for SSM are sophistry.

So SSM is a non-starter based on the actions and character of its proponents. That's before the obvious moral arguments against SSM.

As a group, by embracing these dishonest tactics and practices, SSM proponents are morally bankrupt, trying to cloak themselves in faux moral trappings like comparing SSM to laws against racially-mixed marriages.

We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Good principles. Not dependent upon anyone else granting them at their whim. Principles that pre-exist the Constitition.

phx wrote:I can come up with really ridiculous (boring) examples of freedoms that would be inappropriate.

You've missed the point, or I haven't been clear. All those ridiculous examples were chosen because they are freedoms which are restrained by law. People do drive at high speed; people do commit murder and mayhem; people do commit rape, but they fall afoul of the law when they do so. Gays are free to hold a ceremony and declare themselves husband and wife (or wusband and hife, or what the hell) and indeed they do, but they run afoul of the law when they try to contest a will or collect survivor benefits on that basis, at least in most states and most countries.

Freedom is not the issue. There are an indefinite number of freedoms, approaching infinity I have no doubt. Some are good, some are bad, some have no moral consequence at all. To PRESUME a freedom is good is bucking the odds at least. A very clever moral philosopher will have difficulty showing the goodness of anything, be it representative democracy or pepperoni pizza, so to PRESUME some arbitrary freedom is good, that is to say without evidence or argument, is frankly a little crazy.

Perhaps one day my fate will be a matter of someone else presuming in freedom's favor, and they can carve "The presumption should always be in freedom's favor" on my tombstone just for giggles.

NB - I deleted the first version of this post to add a few indefinite articles and an adjective for clarity.

Pookie-nuts is a good example of the combination of transparently disingenuous, unwanted pity and frighteningly Hitlerian attraction to eugenics that makes the social conservative just as hateful and antithetical to human liberty and freedom as the leftist.

Sadly there will never be a cure for Pookie-nuts's affliction, which is being a total cunt-rag.

I'm sorry that you're upset. As I mentioned above, people like you suffer from an illness that (almost) no-one would choose if they actually had a choice, and for which, as i understand it, there is no treatment yet. That's very unfortunate - I wish I had something more than pity to offer.

I have no attraction to eugenics. Until there's a cure, people with your illness should be free to live your life however they choose. Even when there's a cure, people with your illness should be free to live as they want. I just think that whenever the cure or treatment is found enough people with your illness (or their parents or guardians) will choose to live normal healthy lives, and it will no longer be a significant social or political issue.

Should people born with one blue eye and one green eye be considered abnormal, how about an anomalous bridge between two ribs, or any any birth anomaly? If the condition doesn't harm anyone, and the person who has it is happy with it, why would it need "curing"?

Pookie and other homophobes here, sound abnormal to me, do they need curing?

"As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase. And the dictator will do well to encourage that freedom. In conjunction with the freedom to daydream under the influence of dope, movies and the radio, it will help to reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate".

They are abnormal? What "they" to you mean the irises or the human beings who possess them? Abnormal carries a pejorative sense to many people (shouldn't do, but there you are) so your statement implies a lot that you probably don't mean. Maybe you should have ignored Allie's comment.

As for you, Allie... Q nibbled at your bait and you landed him. Aren't you proud? (Nibbled? Hooked in the gills is more like it) We play Big League around here. "Should people born with one blue eye and one green eye be considered abnormal" is playground smart-ass stuff. Sexuality, hetero or otherwise, is red hot with moral dimensions. Eye color or a goofy rib -- not so much -- and you know it, or I hope you know it.